Whether you get a mercury containing flu shot or not depends on what the doctor's office or pharmacy has on hand. Every year more mercury-containing flu shots are produced than mercury-free shots. So availability is an issue, but cost is not. If there is any difference in cost to the consumer, it is miniscule.

ALWAYS check the package insert. Last year there was a flu shot clinic at my local drugstore. Out of curiosity, I asked the health professionals who were administering the shots if they contained mercury. They said they didn't, and they knew that for sure because they had called their employer and asked. Guess what....the shots contained 25 mcg mercury, the full amount. They were shocked when I showed them the package inserts. I was upset thinking of all the people they previously gave flu shots to, who thought they were getting mercury free shots.

Availability is a huge problem. Places like Safeway, Walgreens and other supermarket/pharmacy flu shot clinics only use the shots that contain mercury. They use those as they are easier to come by, cheaper - because those are mutli-dose vials, which is why they need the thimerosal in them as a preservative, opposed to a single vial shot that is prepackaged and won't get poked multiple times to fill up syringes. Baeh.
We have a problem with this since DH is required to get a stupid flu shot against his will yearly because he is military. On base they only administer FLumist, if you don't want it, go off-base and self-pay. This year we have a little bit more time and I will find a place that has single shots. Most likely obgyn offices will carry it - he can have mine that evil pregnant me is declining.

ma2two is correct...none of the current flu vaccines contain aluminum...but the vast majority of them contain thimerasol. Note that even some of the "single dose" vaxes contain thimerasol, as well. Hope this helps to find a vax that fits your needs, etc.

I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading that even the "mercury free" vaccines aren't really mercury free. They were made with mercury, then had the mercury removed. That process leaves behind trace amounts of mercury, but "trace amounts" isn't a tested or documented amount, so it is up to you to trust how much mercury that really is and whether or not you are comfortable with it.

I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading that even the "mercury free" vaccines aren't really mercury free. They were made with mercury, then had the mercury removed. That process leaves behind trace amounts of mercury, but "trace amounts" isn't a tested or documented amount, so it is up to you to trust how much mercury that really is and whether or not you are comfortable with it.

Aluminium is an adjuvant and necessary to creating the artificial immune response. Thimerasol is still in the flu vaccine and others...it is still in all vaxes in miniscule amounts.

You are correct that aluminum is used as an adjuvant to stimulate the immune response, but it is not in U.S. flu vaccines.

Thimerosal/mercury is NOT in all vaccines. It is in most available doses of flu vaccines. But most other pediatric vaccines in the U.S. are now completely thimerosal/mercury free. If thimerosal/mercury is used in the manufacturing process, it is impossible to filter out completely, so it will be listed in the package insert as <0.3 mcg mercury, which is not actually a miniscule amount. It is 3 times the EPA's limit for hazardous waste.

Thimerosal/mercury was never in live virus vaccines, such as MMR, as it would kill the live viruses.

If thimerosal/mercury is used in the manufacturing process, it is impossible to filter out completely, so it will be listed in the package insert as <0.3 mcg mercury, which is not actually a miniscule amount. It is 3 times the EPA's limit for hazardous waste.

Thanks! I don't think that any of those types of mercury are the one used in vaccines, though. Vaccines use ethylmercury. The EPA regulates methylmercury, which stores in the body much longer than ethylmercury. It may seem like a trivial difference, but it's actually pretty significant. Sort of like methyl alcohol is antifreeze, but ethyl alcohol is an important ingredient in any good cocktail. Just a letter different, but a world apart. So the EPA's guidelines for acceptable levels of methylmercury in land water aren't applicable to vaccines, since no vaccine contains that ingredient.

I have seen your argument (that the mercury in vaccines is safer than methylmercury) on some rabidly pro-vax sites. I'm not sure how many people it convinces. And it happens to be flat-out wrong. But I'm not going to spend much time on that point, because I feel that there's no convincing you, and the rest of us probably don't need convincing. But on the chance that you are open, I'll say one thing then I'm done. Some studies with an obvious agenda have shown that the mercury in thimerosal "leaves the body" quickly, as in not detectible in blood or urine or stool. That's because it gets trapped in the brain. Yay.

I have seen that argument on some rabidly pro-vax sites. I'm not sure how many people it convinces. And it happens to be flat-out wrong. But I'm not going to spend much time on that point, because I feel that there's no convincing you, and the rest of us probably don't need convincing. But on the chance that you are open, I'll say one thing then I'm done. Some studies with an obvious agenda have shown that the mercury in thimerosal "leaves the body" quickly, as in not detectible in blood or urine or stool. That's because it gets trapped in the brain. Yay.

Geez, I don't know Heathergirl's posting history or stance on the vaccine issue, but this came across a little ... brusque.

I don't know the background of pro-vax sites, since I never visit them, and I am unfamiliar with the health arguments for and against ethyl mercury vs methyl mercury. But having a chemical background, I don't think the distinction is a trivial one at all. If this has been hashed out in another thread, please link. Otherwise, there may well be valid points for or against the body's ability to cope with ethyl vs methyl forms of mercury. IMHO, a discussion of the topic is more conducive to the learning process than categorically dismissing the point.

Thanks, I did look at that site, and like I said, I didn't see a recommendation for ethylmercury, the ingredient in some vaccines.

Quote:

I have seen your argument (that the mercury in vaccines is safer than methylmercury) on some rabidly pro-vax sites.

Did you really have to throw "rabidly" in there? Implying that those sites are frenzied and without reason. And that, by extension, so am I because I share that opinion? I know we might disagree on some things, but we can still try to be friendly about it.

Quote:

I'm not sure how many people it convinces. And it happens to be flat-out wrong. But I'm not going to spend much time on that point, because I feel that there's no convincing you, and the rest of us probably don't need convincing.

That's fine. Although I don't like to see someone saying that my position is flat out wrong without some backing evidence being shown. But you're correct, it's not your job to convince me or defend your position if you don't want to.

Quote:

But on the chance that you are open, I'll say one thing then I'm done. Some studies with an obvious agenda have shown that the mercury in thimerosal "leaves the body" quickly, as in not detectible in blood or urine or stool. That's because it gets trapped in the brain. Yay.

Most important, however, is one’s genetically programmed ability to rid the body of mercury. The brain has a house-cleaning protein that removes dangerous waste products, which comes in three varieties: APO-E2, APO-E3, and APO-E4. The APO-E2 protein can carry 2 atoms of mercury out of the brain; APO-3, one; and AOP-E4, none. The genes we acquire from each parent determine which two we have. People with two APO-E4 proteins (and thus no APO-E2 or -E3) have an 80 percent chance of acquiring Alzheimer’s disease. And according to one study, autistic children have a huge preponderance of APO-E4 protein in their brains.

Donald ******, MD
isn't that what this all boils down to. Not that any of the ingredients are "safe". That's a load of *****...no chemical is "safe" ie it has absolutely no effect on the human body. Chemicals may be "safe" for many people in that they do not show detrimental effects from being exposed to said chemical. (This, however does NOT mean that there is NO effect). I digress....the issue is that no 1 person/chil is genetically the same. Certain people/children will have genetic predispositions that make them more vulnerable to the effects the the chemicals/ingredients. This is why the one size fits all, all kids are a carbon copy of one another apprach is such a load of *****

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.